Clause 1, Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act is prescribing as follows. The evidence has admissibility of evidence if concerned a party consents to the evidence. Therefore the evidence which the prosecutor submits has admissibility of evidence if the accused consents. We do not need to question the witness in the law court then. The consent to evidence finishes the criminal procedure rapidly and makes charge cheap. All kind of the evidence comes under the consent about the evidence. The resignation of the cross-examination does not have any meaning about protocol of examination of a suspect. The consent to the evidence is not therefore the resignation of the cross-examination but this the resignation of the right. The right is a admissibility of evidence and probative power of the evidence. The method of consent to the evidence does not need to be the explict. It is possible to the revelation. The accused retreats from the law court and to regard as consent to evidence behind there violates. To leave the law court does not mean to give up the right. Regarding as consent about the evidence therefore after the accused leaves the law court is unjust.

Clause 1, Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act is prescribing as follows. The evidence has admissibility of evidence if concerned a party consents to the evidence. Therefore the evidence which the prosecutor submits has admissibility of evidence if the accused consents. We do not need to question the witness in the law court then. The consent to evidence finishes the criminal procedure rapidly and makes charge cheap. All kind of the evidence comes under the consent about the evidence. The resignation of the cross-examination does not have any meaning about protocol of examination of a suspect. The consent to the evidence is not therefore the resignation of the cross-examination but this the resignation of the right. The right is a admissibility of evidence and probative power of the evidence. The method of consent to the evidence does not need to be the explict. It is possible to the revelation. The accused retreats from the law court and to regard as consent to evidence behind there violates. To leave the law court does not mean to give up the right. Regarding as consent about the evidence therefore after the accused leaves the law court is unjust.

consent to evidence, admissibility of evidence, cross- examination, evidentiary document, hearsay evidence